Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human actionI think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

Who are you even arguing with here?

You are the one making the claims. You claim that saying the rosary would increase the likelihood of a player's head being in the right place, more likely to maximise performance and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. You discribe this a safe assumption. Your words. Your claims. You have been asked repeatedly for supporting evidence. It would be fair to describe your failure to provide any evidence as complete. So what evidence have you got?

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

Regrettably you are going to have to deal with my level of stupidity. You see I am asking you if you believe in Thor. On my level the answer to that is going to be yes you do believe in Thor or no you don't believe in Thor. So which is it?

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress. But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

Why do you care where the storm is headed?Why is equality for these things progress? How will it advance society? What evidence do you have to back this up? Historically Civilisations have thrived in equality. Not to mention that human gravitate away from such societies as they also seek opportunity.

The French and the Dutch seem to take some early steps to minimise the damage. Less human lives taken. Less human lives destroyed. Maybe you are going to argue that that is unimportant and we shouldn't care. Maybe you are going to argue that spiritualists have bigger things to worry about.

The rest of your drivel post is argument for arguments sake. Would you argue that discrimination against you on grounds of gender, race or consensual sexual orientation could represent progress? I think not.

Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

Yes I have. They committed religious genocide in the name of an ideology that held religious belief as the superstitious. Atheism was an intrinsic part of 20th century communism.

There is little to be said in defence of Stalin, Mao etc. It's fairly clear that Stalin was an atheist (though well schooled in religion) but there is a strong argument that the only thing he cared about in terms of religion was destroying any power structure that might exist to rival or challenge his own.

After all he did very little to work out what people actually believed before persecuting them.

Despite it being part of their ideologies that religion was a superstitious distraction that needed to be eradicated?

There was a fair amount in their supposed ideologies that they didn't actually believe.

On religion itself is there any evidence that they gave a shit about the private beliefs of anybody who was not publicly aligned with a rival power structure?

What there is a fair amount of evidence of is...is that they did believe a fair bit of their ideologies with atheism as a cornerstone and they turned this into action by murdering those who didn't align with it.

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human actionI think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

Who are you even arguing with here?

You are the one making the claims. You claim that saying the rosary would increase the likelihood of a player's head being in the right place, more likely to maximise performance and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. You discribe this a safe assumption. Your words. Your claims. You have been asked repeatedly for supporting evidence. It would be fair to describe your failure to provide any evidence as complete. So what evidence have you got?

The evidence is his results as a manager as I have already pointed out.I said it was safe assumption, that' s called induction and its backed up by the evidence of his results as a manager. Now I hate to break it to you but science uses a similar method to build paradigms and theories.

You started looking about direct causality which is impossible to pin down when you enter into determining the cause of human behavior now even assuming materialism and determinism (which you have alluded you adhere to) it would be subject to the most extreme chaos theory as there are far too many factors with differing levels of influence to determine any cause and affect. In much the same as our friend the Hurricane yesterday was skirting Miami and now appears to be directly in its cross hairs, because there are too many factors to predict accurately.

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

Regrettably you are going to have to deal with my level of stupidity. You see I am asking you if you believe in Thor. On my level the answer to that is going to be yes you do believe in Thor or no you don't believe in Thor. So which is it?

Im saying that their understanding of what God is was different, sure my own is refining all the time, its a lot different now than it was when I was a child. Not dissimilar to how my understanding of scientific things changes.Also you should also look up the either or fallacy, attempting to corral me into the answer you want to hear simply will not work

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress. But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

Why do you care where the storm is headed?Why is equality for these things progress? How will it advance society? What evidence do you have to back this up? Historically Civilisations have thrived in inequality. Not to mention that human gravitate away from such societies as they also seek opportunity.

The French and the Dutch seem to take some early steps to minimise the damage. Less human lives taken. Less human lives destroyed. Maybe you are going to argue that that is unimportant and we shouldn't care. Maybe you are going to argue that spiritualists have bigger things to worry about.

The rest of your drivel post is argument for arguments sake. Would you argue that discrimination against you on grounds of gender, race or consensual sexual orientation could represent progress? I think not.

Apologies Typo in bold up there

No Im not saying you shouldn't care. I not opposing your position I am asking what is the reason for it, is there evidence to support it?

And again Im not saying those things arent progress I am asking why you think they are progress? Whats the evidence?

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human actionI think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

Who are you even arguing with here?

You are the one making the claims. You claim that saying the rosary would increase the likelihood of a player's head being in the right place, more likely to maximise performance and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. You discribe this a safe assumption. Your words. Your claims. You have been asked repeatedly for supporting evidence. It would be fair to describe your failure to provide any evidence as complete. So what evidence have you got?

The evidence is his results as a manager as I have already pointed out.I said it was safe assumption, that' s called induction and its backed up by the evidence of his results as a manager. Now I hate to break it to you but science uses a similar method to build paradigms and theories.

You started looking about direct causality which is impossible to pin down when you enter into determining the cause of human behavior now even assuming materialism and determinism (which you have alluded you adhere to) it would be subject to the most extreme chaos theory as there are far too many factors with differing levels of influence to determine any cause and affect. In much the same as our friend the Hurricane yesterday was skirting Miami and now appears to be directly in its cross hairs, because there are too many factors to predict accurately.

Which respected scientist are you talking about? The one that takes outputs that are the result of diverse inputs and uses that as evidence of the impact of a single input?

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

Regrettably you are going to have to deal with my level of stupidity. You see I am asking you if you believe in Thor. On my level the answer to that is going to be yes you do believe in Thor or no you don't believe in Thor. So which is it?

Im saying that their understanding of what God is was different, sure my own is refining all the time, its a lot different now than it was when I was a child. Not dissimilar to how my understanding of scientific things changes.Also you should also look up the either or fallacy, attempting to corral me into the answer you want to hear simply will not work

Who is "their"? I'm not talking about anybody else's beliefs. It's yours that is being debated. Do you believe in Thor? If not, why not?

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress. But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

Why do you care where the storm is headed?Why is equality for these things progress? How will it advance society? What evidence do you have to back this up? Historically Civilisations have thrived in inequality. Not to mention that human gravitate away from such societies as they also seek opportunity.

The French and the Dutch seem to take some early steps to minimise the damage. Less human lives taken. Less human lives destroyed. Maybe you are going to argue that that is unimportant and we shouldn't care. Maybe you are going to argue that spiritualists have bigger things to worry about.

The rest of your drivel post is argument for arguments sake. Would you argue that discrimination against you on grounds of gender, race or consensual sexual orientation could represent progress? I think not.

Apologies Typo in bold up there

No Im not saying you shouldn't care. I not opposing your position I am asking what is the reason for it, is there evidence to support it?

And again Im not saying those things arent progress I am asking why you think they are progress? Whats the evidence?

Evidence of inequality is fairly basic stuff. Evidence of the impact of inequality is also fairly basic. Do you wanted it listed?

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human actionI think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

Who are you even arguing with here?

You are the one making the claims. You claim that saying the rosary would increase the likelihood of a player's head being in the right place, more likely to maximise performance and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. You discribe this a safe assumption. Your words. Your claims. You have been asked repeatedly for supporting evidence. It would be fair to describe your failure to provide any evidence as complete. So what evidence have you got?

The evidence is his results as a manager as I have already pointed out.I said it was safe assumption, that' s called induction and its backed up by the evidence of his results as a manager. Now I hate to break it to you but science uses a similar method to build paradigms and theories.

You started looking about direct causality which is impossible to pin down when you enter into determining the cause of human behavior now even assuming materialism and determinism (which you have alluded you adhere to) it would be subject to the most extreme chaos theory as there are far too many factors with differing levels of influence to determine any cause and affect. In much the same as our friend the Hurricane yesterday was skirting Miami and now appears to be directly in its cross hairs, because there are too many factors to predict accurately.

Which respected scientist are you talking about? The one that takes outputs that are the result of diverse inputs and uses that as evidence of the impact of a single input?

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

Regrettably you are going to have to deal with my level of stupidity. You see I am asking you if you believe in Thor. On my level the answer to that is going to be yes you do believe in Thor or no you don't believe in Thor. So which is it?

Im saying that their understanding of what God is was different, sure my own is refining all the time, its a lot different now than it was when I was a child. Not dissimilar to how my understanding of scientific things changes.Also you should also look up the either or fallacy, attempting to corral me into the answer you want to hear simply will not work

Who is "their"? I'm not talking about anybody else's beliefs. It's yours that is being debated. Do you believe in Thor? If not, why not?

"Their" would be followers of Thor or whoever, its explained above fairly explicitly above. Im sorry that it didn't include the answer you wanted but to fall for such a basic fallacy would be a crime against reason.

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress. But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

Why do you care where the storm is headed?Why is equality for these things progress? How will it advance society? What evidence do you have to back this up? Historically Civilisations have thrived in inequality. Not to mention that human gravitate away from such societies as they also seek opportunity.

The French and the Dutch seem to take some early steps to minimise the damage. Less human lives taken. Less human lives destroyed. Maybe you are going to argue that that is unimportant and we shouldn't care. Maybe you are going to argue that spiritualists have bigger things to worry about.

The rest of your drivel post is argument for arguments sake. Would you argue that discrimination against you on grounds of gender, race or consensual sexual orientation could represent progress? I think not.

Apologies Typo in bold up there

No Im not saying you shouldn't care. I not opposing your position I am asking what is the reason for it, is there evidence to support it?

And again Im not saying those things arent progress I am asking why you think they are progress? Whats the evidence?

Evidence of inequality is fairly basic stuff. Evidence of the impact of inequality is also fairly basic. Do you wanted it listed?

A quick look at the history of anthropology can give us many pros and cons to perceived inequality in terms of the growth of a civilization. But is growth progress? If so why? If not why?and more importantly why do you care?

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human actionI think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

Who are you even arguing with here?

You are the one making the claims. You claim that saying the rosary would increase the likelihood of a player's head being in the right place, more likely to maximise performance and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. You discribe this a safe assumption. Your words. Your claims. You have been asked repeatedly for supporting evidence. It would be fair to describe your failure to provide any evidence as complete. So what evidence have you got?

The evidence is his results as a manager as I have already pointed out.I said it was safe assumption, that' s called induction and its backed up by the evidence of his results as a manager. Now I hate to break it to you but science uses a similar method to build paradigms and theories.

You started looking about direct causality which is impossible to pin down when you enter into determining the cause of human behavior now even assuming materialism and determinism (which you have alluded you adhere to) it would be subject to the most extreme chaos theory as there are far too many factors with differing levels of influence to determine any cause and affect. In much the same as our friend the Hurricane yesterday was skirting Miami and now appears to be directly in its cross hairs, because there are too many factors to predict accurately.

Which respected scientist are you talking about? The one that takes outputs that are the result of diverse inputs and uses that as evidence of the impact of a single input?

Let me know who they are and I will look them up.

Good glad we agree at last.

Check out how Einstein's deductive path from relativity to spacetime

I'm not a scientist so my view here might be influenced in whole or in part by my relative ignorance but your example looks like a bad one.

Its ok for a scientist to make assumptions in postulating a theory. Its only a theory. Its then out there as a contribution that acknowledges its assumptions and the scientific community of the time can test and explore and use subsequent evidence to prove, refine or disprove the theory.

That's not the same as ignoring all factors bar one and claiming this to be proof

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

Regrettably you are going to have to deal with my level of stupidity. You see I am asking you if you believe in Thor. On my level the answer to that is going to be yes you do believe in Thor or no you don't believe in Thor. So which is it?

Im saying that their understanding of what God is was different, sure my own is refining all the time, its a lot different now than it was when I was a child. Not dissimilar to how my understanding of scientific things changes.Also you should also look up the either or fallacy, attempting to corral me into the answer you want to hear simply will not work

Who is "their"? I'm not talking about anybody else's beliefs. It's yours that is being debated. Do you believe in Thor? If not, why not?

"Their" would be followers of Thor or whoever, its explained above fairly explicitly above. Im sorry that it didn't include the answer you wanted but to fall for such a basic fallacy would be a crime against reason.

The fact remains that you either a) do believe in Thor or b) don't believe in Thor. Either way you don't seem to be able to admit to it. There is no fallacy here. Just someone refusing to honestly engage in a debate and hiding behind a pretence